In Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed" he mentioned that a problem with the Libertarian / Anarchist movement was that it was prone to attract "losers" and "mooches". This is seen as something that limits its growth and not the philosophy itself. (I don't have the book in front of me so I cannot cite it. Sorry.)
He also mentioned with the losers and mooches that it was heavy in people who work in computers. I work in computers, but I took this more as a call for people of other professions to join or try to attract them and not a statement condemning computer nerds for being anarchists.
I have encountered a few impoverished Randians with oddball money making schemes that they want me to invest in. Or invest in and do all the work and split the money with them 50/50...but they are easy to avoid. But I have not encountered the other losers and mooches that Hoppe mentions.
Computer nerds....Yes, plenty of them. Including myself. I think I can explain our attraction to anarchism:
Thirty years ago computers were just beggining to emerge as something people could use at home. Before 1975 to use a computer you had to be in a large university, business or government institution. Three years later people were playing PAC PET on Commodore PET computers in their living rooms. People who fiddled with electronics in sheds were now multi millionairs and there was a software industry specifically for them.
Still, big Government and big industry had the really cool, powerful stuff available to them. It was not like a Motorola 6800 chip or an intel 8080 were going to ever best DEC, IBM or Cray.
Flash ahead years later to 1995 when Intel's top chip was 166mhz and 32 bit and DEC's was the 64 bit Alpha at 500mhz. Still...almost 20 years after the first desktop computer there was no real comparison between consumer grade technology and the industrial high end computing other than one was affordable and slow and the other one was priced out of range of most people and really fast. The cost was the only real competition, not speed and quality.
Now, once again thanks to people tinkering in sheds and kitchens we have commodity PC based clusters than can beat nearly anything. Cray and SGI moved to the x86 platform and IBM is adopting Linux (programmed first in a dorm room in Finland). The desktop computer has not only brought computing to the masses it has usurped the powerful and the costly...All due to capitalism making things cheaper, better and faster and dedicated hobbiests and professionals exploiting this with products of their own.
So I do not know why other professions such as drywallers and automechanics have not been drawn to anachism but the nerds and computer wonks have seen it in action and see that it works. In this action companies such as intel, apple, AMD and Microsoft combined with the spontaneous order of Linux have trounced the powerful and the previously untouchable and it can be done again in other areas of life.
http://www.comebackalive.com/phpBB2 Travel, Adventure Travel, Arguments, Recipes.
I think his point is that these people are introverts by nature and thus not conducive to spreading the message of liberty or presenting it in a solid fashion. He also refers (through Rothbard) to lawyers without practises etc. So I'm guessing his point is that libertarianism needs to appeal to a broader audience. I might be wrong though, but that's what I got from that passage.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I think the big reasons basically boil down to level of socialization, intelligence, and availability of information.
Part of the definition of a nerd is that, even if one is not a friendless pariah, social skills are somewhat limited. A nerd doesn't do popular things; they're bookish, less athletic, have trouble talking to members of the opposite sex, et cetera. While this can often be a painful set of affairs for the ones involved, it has its advantages. You don't fit in, and you don't talk to those who fit in. Indeed, your relationship may be defined somewhat by hostility. So, those viewpoints and tastes which seem conventional, are, to the nerd, unwelcoming and associated with rejection and other unpleasantness. This causes the nerd to seek unconventional viewpoints.
A certain degree of intelligence, such as nerds tend to have, also aids in the process, because an intelligent person can analyze different viewpoints better. A nerd's strength is intellectual, so he/she gravitates toward intellectually sound and defensible ideas.
Finally, as computer nerds, we have a greater adroitness with the use of the unprecidented font of information that is the internet. Others might go online for news and the like, but they will restrict themselves to Faux or CNN and the like.
In sum, the adult nerd is one who, after a lifetime as at least something of an outsider because of his or her intelligence, tastes, and creativity, has generally come to embrace and take pride in this status. In the case of those of libertarian mindsets, this is actually somewhat justified.
As an interesting side note, up at LRC right now there is an interview of Glen Jacobs, AKA Kane of WWE wrestling, who was a celebrity supporter of Ron Paul and is a libertarian. I guarantee that this 7 ft. behemoth (though I haven't watched in awhile, he was always my favorite) was a nerd in his youth, and indeed, as a blogger and libertarian with a fictional gothy persona, still really is. Just a rich, gigantic one.
I have always had a soft spot, like a cushioned turnbuckle, for Pro Wrestlers.
I agree with JC and Jon's description of what Hoppe meant by nerds (not a word he used though) but luckily that is changing now. I used to be a truck driver and then became a nerd but I will always be a truck driver at heart just as I am sure Kane will always be a nerd at heart too.
I just got a promotion where I work and part of that has been interviewing ...nerds...and the batch of nerds I am interviewing is really not nerdy at all. All are svelte, use deoderant, and wear clothes besides sweatpants. The last job I had I helped with interviews for Unix (my boss was a VMS guy) right after the dot com crash and we got a whole load of guys who looked and acted like "Comic Book Guy" from The Simpsons, young "web content developers" whose previous job was to play Quake on the Lan while their boss burned through venture capital and people from the Indian Sub-Continent who had fraudulent resumes and hoped that the stereotype of Indians as computer experts would get them a job and a green card.
Much better batch of people these days. Nerds are more mainstream now since no one wants to work with the smelly, cocky ones..where before there was no choice. But I can see where Hoppe and Rothbard were coming from ...but it is getting less and less like that (as far as computer nerd libertarians go).
This reminds me of a Kevorkian quote, of which I think "boredom" (I would say institutionalized apathy or lethargy, having grown up in the Statist system, are better phrases) most certainly contributes to some becoming "moochers", (reluctantly, sub-consciously, or purposely): "It's the boredom that kills you. You read until you're tired of that. You do crossword puzzles until you're tired of that. This is torture. This is mental torture."
"It's the boredom that kills you. You read until you're tired of that. You do crossword puzzles until you're tired of that. This is torture. This is mental torture."
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Libertarianism / Anarchism is popularised a lot using the internet, so it's no wonder it's web-geeks that stumble across it the most.
There is the boredom possibility, but I still attribute boredom as more of the attitude of the bored than the environment. Bored people always seem to want to be entertained and expect people to amuse them and stimulate them. As a kid when I would complain to my mother about being bored she would tell me to stop being boring and shove me outside. (not literally). I grew up in a boring place surrounded by boring people and I enjoyed it since we tended to focus on reading and conversation for amusement rather than entertainment.
When I was part of the anti-IMF and anti-World Bank movement years ago we had moochers a-plenty. They just spent their time showing up at organizational meetings and tried to tell everyone what to do but they themselves did nothing and somehow thought their nothingness should be equal to substance. They were even derisive of us and called us "Workists" (I have yet to figure out why that is insulting) but they really enjoyed the free pizza I bought for people and had no problem asking me and others to give them money for some charitible project they were working on (most likely themselves). One fifty-something Canadian woman even insisted that I marry her so she could remain in the country and I was derided as being "selfish" for refusing.
My other "Workist" friends and I handled the situation by sneaking out of the meetings to hold real meetings elsewhere and that worked very well. We theorised that these people blamed their current situation not on themselves but on the "state"and the only way to better their current situation without becoming a "workist" was to smash the state so it could be replaced with something that would value them.
The other theory was that they were moochers to the core and sought out defiant enviroments to mask their lazinness with a veneer of rebelion and mooch off the "Solidarity".
I should not have to tell any of you that these were mostly leftists but I think the dynamics might be the same in other movements as well.
Nitro, I think the italic (i) or (em) tag on your quote has been left open and is bleeding to subsequent posts.
liberty student: Nitro, I think the italic (i) or (em) tag on your quote has been left open and is bleeding to subsequent posts.
Fixed it; turns out I italizied one of the quote tags, strange :\
This is why I think Stefan Molyneux's work is positive. He tries to really help people psychologically rather than just relying on theory that nerds can ingest and then say they know stuff (about the Fed, price calculation, etc.). Christ, we all know we're nerds and many of us know the standard economic and ethical theories of libertarianism -- but is that all there is? I think Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand tried to do the same with self-esteem, from what I've read. Of course, there's always controversy with them too... people will say they are fascists for suggesting there is something to do in the free world besides just knowledge acquisition. Like happiness and attaining goals and stuff. Who knows if they are correct in their methods (save the people who just tried it and found out), but it's certainly something to think about.
John Ess: This is why I think Stefan Molyneux's work is positive. He tries to really help people psychologically rather than just relying on theory that nerds can ingest and then say they know stuff (about the Fed, price calculation, etc.). Christ, we all know we're nerds and many of us know the standard economic and ethical theories of libertarianism -- but is that all there is? I think Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand tried to do the same with self-esteem, from what I've read. Of course, there's always controversy with them too... people will say they are fascists for suggesting there is something to do in the free world besides just knowledge acquisition. Like happiness and attaining goals and stuff. Who knows if they are correct in their methods (save the people who just tried it and found out), but it's certainly something to think about.
Why don't you just marry him?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
While Molyneux's work is positive regarding psychology, it should be considered, not taken as doctrine. The followers of Rand made the similar mistake when Herr Peikoff took over & began the Neo-Objecticon movement; this is why if anyone asks me about Objectivism, I usually refer them to Post-Objectivism instead, as it treats Rand's work as something to build off of, rather than some end all be all bible for one to program themselves with. Some of that criticism regarding followers could apply to Molyneux's as well, but I'll take those guys over a Peikoff-droid anyday. Back on topic, the "Psychology of Statism" is a more recent focus of mine as well, & even though it probably has been covered before by others, I also agree it doesn't seem to be an area many get familiar with until after stumbling around with theory. I'm beginning to also think that such psychology would be easier to ultilize instead of pure theory, regarding the conversation & arguments with Statists.
Well, I think nerds and losers are just more curious and receptive to radical ideas. For example, I explored everything from anarchism, transhumanism, to free software and learn all sort of cool stuff.
Nerds are like genetic experiments. The only problem is that the really good ones don't like to reproduce or lack the gene to attract the opposite sex. So we're left with mostly brainwashed people.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
kiba: Nerds are like genetic experiments.
Nerds are like genetic experiments.
That brought tears to all three of my eyes.
Nitroadict: John Ess: This is why I think Stefan Molyneux's work is positive. He tries to really help people psychologically rather than just relying on theory that nerds can ingest and then say they know stuff (about the Fed, price calculation, etc.). Christ, we all know we're nerds and many of us know the standard economic and ethical theories of libertarianism -- but is that all there is? I think Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand tried to do the same with self-esteem, from what I've read. Of course, there's always controversy with them too... people will say they are fascists for suggesting there is something to do in the free world besides just knowledge acquisition. Like happiness and attaining goals and stuff. Who knows if they are correct in their methods (save the people who just tried it and found out), but it's certainly something to think about. While Molyneux's work is positive regarding psychology, it should be considered, not taken as doctrine. The followers of Rand made the similar mistake when Herr Peikoff took over & began the Neo-Objecticon movement; this is why if anyone asks me about Objectivism, I usually refer them to Post-Objectivism instead, as it treats Rand's work as something to build off of, rather than some end all be all bible for one to program themselves with. Some of that criticism regarding followers could apply to Molyneux's as well, but I'll take those guys over a Peikoff-droid anyday. Back on topic, the "Psychology of Statism" is a more recent focus of mine as well, & even though it probably has been covered before by others, I also agree it doesn't seem to be an area many get familiar with until after stumbling around with theory. I'm beginning to also think that such psychology would be easier to ultilize instead of pure theory, regarding the conversation & arguments with Statists.
Well, I don't know if it is professional advice or not (though I thought libertarians were opposed to licensing cartels)... but if it seems to work on the individual level with the people he talks to, I don't see how it is a negative thing. I think it is a positive thing if people have self-esteem instead of, for instance, harming the movement by being another cliche of anarchism. Push comes to shove, he just refers them to professionals in general. Which may be the basic push people need (not any specific anarchist related advice). I've been really interested in his psychological work after he recommended Lloyd deMause's psychohistorical work which I find fascinating (especially his work on war, money and guilt).
Frankly, I don't think it is a stretch to say that some anti-government stuff is pretty paranoid and crazy. And not just 9/11 conspiracies. If you listen to stuff like the commercials on the Michael Badnarik... it isn't nerds, but stuff that sorta borderlines on the reptoid overlord stuff. And we certainly don't need people mixing the business cycle theory with aliens or Satan. I already sense that information about the Fed could easily reap diminishing returns and be turned into a parody by people on both sides of the issue that don't understand it very well.
Twirlcan: There is the boredom possibility, but I still attribute boredom as more of the attitude of the bored than the environment. Bored people always seem to want to be entertained and expect people to amuse them and stimulate them. As a kid when I would complain to my mother about being bored she would tell me to stop being boring and shove me outside. (not literally). I grew up in a boring place surrounded by boring people and I enjoyed it since we tended to focus on reading and conversation for amusement rather than entertainment. When I was part of the anti-IMF and anti-World Bank movement years ago we had moochers a-plenty. They just spent their time showing up at organizational meetings and tried to tell everyone what to do but they themselves did nothing and somehow thought their nothingness should be equal to substance. They were even derisive of us and called us "Workists" (I have yet to figure out why that is insulting) but they really enjoyed the free pizza I bought for people and had no problem asking me and others to give them money for some charitible project they were working on (most likely themselves). One fifty-something Canadian woman even insisted that I marry her so she could remain in the country and I was derided as being "selfish" for refusing. My other "Workist" friends and I handled the situation by sneaking out of the meetings to hold real meetings elsewhere and that worked very well. We theorised that these people blamed their current situation not on themselves but on the "state"and the only way to better their current situation without becoming a "workist" was to smash the state so it could be replaced with something that would value them. The other theory was that they were moochers to the core and sought out defiant enviroments to mask their lazinness with a veneer of rebelion and mooch off the "Solidarity". I should not have to tell any of you that these were mostly leftists but I think the dynamics might be the same in other movements as well.
Yea, I only focused on the effect of an individual growing up in a certain enviroment (this would be more obvious in school, where those who drop-out & werre considered "failures" in school flourished elswhere in different enviroments that more than likley had less authoritarianism going on than public schools); the individual him/herself cannot be ignored either.On somewhat of a side note, what do you think of Bob Black's advocation for the abolition of work / turning work into play (text: http://www.zpub.com/notes/black-work.html or summary, under the Abolition Of Work section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Black) ?* I disagree on his statement that *all* work is meaningless, though.
I don't know of any non-nerds who study philosophy or economics for fun. That being said, you can still be a bit nerdy and have a social life at the same time.
Political Atheists Blog
I think it's hard to define a nerd nowadays. One can be a loner without being a nerd and vice versa. And also read a lot without being one.
krazy kaju: I don't know of any non-nerds who study philosophy or economics for fun. That being said, you can still be a bit nerdy and have a social life at the same time.
Agreed, but I am only interested in the opposite sex. =p
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
Jon Irenicus: I think his point is that these people are introverts by nature and thus not conducive to spreading the message of liberty or presenting it in a solid fashion.
I think his point is that these people are introverts by nature and thus not conducive to spreading the message of liberty or presenting it in a solid fashion.
I think it's valid to point out that people who believe in liberty tend to be intellectuals, and there's a good reason for that - your average rat-racer or "popular" person just doesn't stop to think about that sort of thing. They're too busy working or being popular.
He also refers (through Rothbard) to lawyers without practises etc. So I'm guessing his point is that libertarianism needs to appeal to a broader audience.
That's happening now, though, thanks to things like Free Talk Live and a swarm of swarms of internet-based pro-liberty media - for which we have none other to thank than the computer nerds.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
I don't know. I'm certainly not a nerd. In fact, I'm a fairly popular (well, at least, I'm not unpopular) man-whore. I'm intelligent, though, I guess. I've never met a "nerd" in my school who was libertarian or understood austrian economics, in fact the only nerds I've known are only interested in grades and becoming "whatever-their-parents-want" when they grow up. The average person is more "libertarian" in nature than a nerd, at least in my experience. Non-nerds seems more self-interested and want increased rights for themselves, whereas nerds, seem to attract themselves to the sanctity of the state and the belief that socialism is the intellectual ideology.
Wow............I just realized how collectivist and unintelligent this entire post is!!!
Thank You - Brandon
Doesn't Hoppe also complain that there are too many drg using, rock n roll, non culturally conservative libertarians?
Yeah. Even I am one of those types from several points of view, in spite of broad intellectual agreement with Dr Hoppe.
10Brandonr:Wow............I just realized how collectivist and unintelligent this entire post is!!!
It wouldn't be so bad, if it was true. But it isn't. So-called normal/popular people don't sit around analyzing the structure that accommodates them and reject it. You'd have to be somewhat dissociated or disenfranchised in order to look at the state (naturally) with a wary and skeptical eye.
Good luck trying to wake up a normal person who has normal relationships, a normal job, a normal social/family life etc. You're trying to cram the red pill down Neo's throat and he hasn't even met Trinity yet.
Jon Irenicus:Yeah. Even I am one of those types from several points of view, in spite of broad intellectual agreement with Dr Hoppe.
Gee, and I always thought you were a little bit of country, and no rock'n roll. lol
Nope. I like heavy metal and I dress the part. That is just one way I deviate from being Hoppe's ideal libertarian PR man.
majevska: Doesn't Hoppe also complain that there are too many drg using, rock n roll, non culturally conservative libertarians?
There was a Lew Rockwell podcast, with I think, Mark Thornton and Lew or Mark, I think it was Lew, brought up tattoos and how they were something that becomes more prolific in booms. And how all of those bastards who got tattoos were gunna regret them now, because the labour market will be more competitive and a guy with a tat is at a disadvantage.
I got my tat and earrings when I was very poor, and didn't ever see myself having a "good" job. In hindsight, I wish I didn't have the tattoo (only because it is an identifying mark) and I took my earrings (4) out after a couple years. It was a phase.
I think that cultural conservatism, whether Hoppe or Rockwell, is a little goofy. People like me create jobs. And I am open minded enough to hire someone who makes me money, their tattoo or earrings are irrelevant. Most customers are more socially liberal than our leading edge conservative-libertarian teachers.
Jon Irenicus:I like heavy metal and I dress the part.
I didn't imagine you that way. But then, I think we're all very individualistic and probably don't conform to many cliches or stereotypes.
Country though? I'd have thought at least classical music, which I do like!
It was a joke poorly executed that you did not get. You should check out the original man in black however.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhtcaRRngcw
There is something about Classical Music and heavy metal fans. They tend to move from classical to metal and from metal to classical with ease and with equal listening enjoyment.
I like classical music (and dress the part...powdered wigs, corsets, and my Haberdasher has an excellent reputation and does not yet suffer from madness) but the more I like it, the better Iron Maiden sounds to me.
Jon Irenicus:Nope. I like heavy metal and I dress the part. That is just one way I deviate from being Hoppe's ideal libertarian PR man.
Yeah, cause no nerds like to listen to heavy metal and "dress the part". LMFAO!!! Holy crap dude, "Yeah, and I've got this awesome spiked collar and an AC/DC t-shirt. I'm kewwwwwwwwwwwwwl!" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Nah, but seriously, no really, ain't who's spent much time writing in the forum based on a particular school of ECONOMICS what ain't nerd, I'm sorry. And for that bloke what said earlier that he's some sorta ladies man... nerd girls need love too, I guess! So funny!
Twirlcan: There is something about Classical Music and heavy metal fans. They tend to move from classical to metal and from metal to classical with ease and with equal listening enjoyment. I like classical music (and dress the part...powdered wigs, corsets, and my Haberdasher has an excellent reputation and does not yet suffer from madness) but the more I like it, the better Iron Maiden sounds to me.
Internets to the rescue...[from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_metal_music ]
Classical influenceRobert Walser argues that, alongside blues and R&B, the "assemblage of disparate musical styles known...as 'classical music'" has been a major influence on heavy metal since the genre's earliest days. He claims that metal's "most influential musicians have been guitar players who have also studied classical music. Their appropriation and adaptation of classical models sparked the development of a new kind of guitar virtuosity [and] changes in the harmonic and melodic language of heavy metal."[28]The appropriation of "classical" music by heavy metal musicians typically involves musical elements associated with the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras of art music. Deep Purple/Rainbow guitarist Ritchie Blackmore and Scorpions guitarist Uli Jon Roth began experimenting with musical figurations borrowed from classical music in the early 1970s. In the 1980s, guitarists Randy Rhoads and Yngwie Malmsteen used eighteenth-century Baroque and later classical compositions as models, inspiring neoclassical metal players including Michael Romeo, Michael Angelo Batio, and Tony MacAlpine.Although a number of metal musicians cite classical composers as inspiration, heavy metal cannot be regarded as the modern descendant of classical music.[29] Classical and metal are rooted in different cultural traditions and practices—classical in the art music tradition, metal in the popular music tradition. As musicologists Nicolas Cook and Nicola Dibben note, "Analyses of popular music also sometimes reveal the influence of 'art traditions.' An example is Walser’s linkage of heavy metal music with the ideologies and even some of the performance practices of nineteenth-century Romanticism. However, it would be clearly wrong to claim that traditions such as blues, rock, heavy metal, rap or dance music derive primarily from 'art music.'"[30] Heavy metal borrows only some aspects of classical music, such as motifs, melodies, and scales, rather than more complex features, such as counterpoint, polyphony, and classical structural forms. Heavy metal bands, including progressive and neoclassical metal bands, generally do not seek to observe the compositional and aesthetical exigencies of classical music.
That is interesting. What I really wanted to read though was something about how heavy metal artists copied Johan Sebastian Bach's habit of setting a harpsichord on fire after every performance.
But I guess that reason only exists in my dreams.
I would much rather be a productive and honest nerd then an anarchist teaching in a state school (moocher), like Hoppe. Don't get me wrong now, I like much of Hoppes theory and teaching but there is something fundamentally wrong about free market anarchism being teached through a state school so Hoppe and his likes should be very careful in whom they say is advancing libertarianism/free market anarchism and who is mooching (or whatever he calls it).
I would recommend Stefan Molyneux latest book "How (not) to achieve freedom", where he spends quite a lot of time talking about the hypocrisy of many free market intelectuals. Say what you want about Stefan, but he sure has the balls to live the way he teaches other to.
Magnus: I would much rather be a productive and honest nerd then an anarchist teaching in a state school (moocher), like Hoppe. Don't get me wrong now, I like much of Hoppes theory and teaching but there is something fundamentally wrong about free market anarchism being teached through a state school so Hoppe and his likes should be very careful in whom they say is advancing libertarianism/free market anarchism and who is mooching (or whatever he calls it). I would recommend Stefan Molyneux latest book "How (not) to achieve freedom", where he spends quite a lot of time talking about the hypocrisy of many free market intelectuals. Say what you want about Stefan, but he sure has the balls to live the way he teaches other to.
What the hell is with all these Molyneux fanboys?
I don't see what the problem is with anarchists teaching in public universities to be honest, there's no alternative really. Even if they did teach in an entirely private one it's regulated by the state. It's no different from Molyneux using state roads, shopping in supermarkets that have been regulated by the state etc. The problem is we're all complicit in this, no through our own choices but because we've had it forced upon us. Well, this is especially true for universities.
I don't understand what Molyneux's issue is with Hoppe and Rothbard (and any others, I really don't know much about US universities but I assume they're all state owned at least in part? In which case you can add Block, Long etc on to that list, but I'm probably wrong) teaching at state owned universities? Is it the fact that they can spread libertarianism far more effectively than Molyneux can through his podcasts? To point out the obvious: education through universities is one of the most effective ways to "convert" people, if Molyneux isn't qualified to do it then poor him. He can carry on with his podcasts, I just wish people would realise they do far more for his own ego than they do for the cause of liberty.
I'd rather not waste my time reading more of Molyneux's poorly writing "literature" thanks, so if you could tell me what his point is I'd appreciate it, and how exactly does he live in the way he teaches others to do? If I remember correctly he advocates cutting off contact with statists? But I could be wrong. Molyneux is full of nonsense. How ridiculous comparing Hoppe, in my opinion the most important libertarian thinker of the time to Molyneux, who comes out with second rate (to be kind) justifications for liberty.
As a side note, I've realised it's no suprise he calls himself an atheist, he views himself as god, and who can be suprised when he has so many fools worshipping him.
Magnus:I would much rather be a productive and honest nerd then an anarchist teaching in a state school (moocher), like Hoppe. Don't get me wrong now, I like much of Hoppes theory and teaching but there is something fundamentally wrong about free market anarchism being teached through a state school so Hoppe and his likes should be very careful in whom they say is advancing libertarianism/free market anarchism and who is mooching (or whatever he calls it).
This reads like an argument against insurgency. I don't see anything wrong with someone teaching anti-statism in a state school. That is the breeding factory for statist intellectuals, I'd consider it a battleground for change.
GilesStratton:What the hell is with all these Molyneux fanboys?
I found Magnus' post informative. I'm neither a fan or a hater. And his post certainly didn't read like fan mail.
You seem to get exceptionally agitated if anyone brings up Stef.
liberty student: GilesStratton:What the hell is with all these Molyneux fanboys? I found Magnus' post informative. I'm neither a fan or a hater. And his post certainly didn't read like fan mail. You seem to get exceptionally agitated if anyone brings up Stef.
Lol, I extremely dislike Molyneux, even more so than Friedman Jr.
Jon Irenicus:I think it's hard to define a nerd nowadays. One can be a loner without being a nerd and vice versa. And also read a lot without being one.
True, but I find it hard how one can say that stuying philosophy and economics for fun is NOT nerdy. At the same time, you don't have to give up a social life because you're interested in nerdy topics. For example, it's a balancing act for me to decide which friends I will hang out with at what time. I love chilling with my friends and I love partying even more, yet I also manage to read economics books and do two sports. But all my friends know that I'm a bit nerdy, but they still respect me. It's not like one has to be autistic to be a nerd.